Jump to content

Remon

Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Remon


  1. A business model that relies on 'donations' is ridiculous. They are a corporate entity, the dlc is not value for money, I can have everything that someone who pays £10 gets, minus 2 helis for free. If you're going to sell something then it's better be value for money or 'your're gonna have a bad time.'

    You're right. Just release the fucking features inside the DLCs for 30 bucks, because that makes more sense to sneakers.


  2. Myke;2699554']Sadly this isn't as easy as you probably expect. Execandy PhysX can be set by developer to make use of a PhysX compatible GPU (nVidia). Non-nVidia user will get less eyecandy but this isn't really a problem. On the other hand' date=' gameplay relevant PhysX has to be compatible for all users, not just nVidia customers. Therefor the PhysX is set to run on the CPU so everyone get the same result on-screen which is relevant for the gameplay.[/quote']

    It's not only that. Not everything in Physx can be accelerated by a CUDA card. The stuff that get benefits from the cards are mostly about particles (like the sparks from the welder in Metro Last Light). Arma is only using parts of the library that can't be accelerated.


  3. Well, that's to be expected from a flight sim, we'll just have to wait and see how's the Nevada map and the EDGE engine that comes with it.

    Funny, seems like ED is pulling a reverse ARMA, with a high fidelity air unit sim blended with a lower fidelity ground units sim/RTS.


  4. Press Release

    Pre-Purchase “DCS: Combined Arms†in June 2012

    DUXFORD, UK, May 31st 2012 – The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics will offer DCS: Combined Arms as a digital download pre-purchase for $29.99 in June 2012. Pre-purchase also provides access to pre-release Beta versions of the title.

    DCS: Combined Arms gives the user control of ground forces during the battle. Use the strategic map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) and designate targets for close air support aircraft, or directly control an armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage enemy forces.

    Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare simulation, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

    DCS: Combined Arms supports both single player and multiplayer gameplay. When in multiplayer, different players can take on different roles such as artillery commanders, tank commanders, pilots, JTACS, etc. DCS: Combined Arms allows you full control of the battle. All roles can be changed dynamically during the battle.

    Features of the DCS: Combined Arms:

    • Move ground forces and direct their fire during a mission.

    • Be the Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) and direct close air support.

    • Jump into the seat of many armor and air defense units to engage enemy air and ground forces.

    • Play in both single player and multiplayer games.

    • Both small and large scale battle missions included.

    • Part of DCS World

    Trailer:

    I was only expecting a JTAC from the Combined Arms, (very) pleasantly surprised.


  5. Hang on, do you mean to say you actually got flight time?! I was met with CTD everytime I tried to start a game.

    Instant action - Nope, CTD. (for all 3 options)

    Campaign - Nope, CTD.

    Ahh, I'll try to generate my own mission...Nope, CTD.

    Speaking of options - Anyone else notice the "high" missing from the textures and scenes options, and no option for HDR? :j: Is this their version of BAF/PMC lite perhaps?

    Extremely disappointed with this game, and company. After hearing such good things about DCS I was excited to see this free to play option, and while it may be the case that it's just this version which is corrupted (or just my bad luck) what other people describe about their business model has put me off ever giving them any of my money.

    Haven't got one CTD from DCS World. Also, I don't get the no HDR option, as I have it on my install. And a last thing, this is a beta.

    Free Su-25T sim? Oh, and hadn't they released paid sim called Lock On Flaming Cliffs with main star as... Su-25T? I really don't understand what's going on with Lock On/DCS, didn't pay attention to this series for a long time.:( Can anybody explain me in a couple of words, what do the Black Shark 2 and DCS world mean?

    The Su-25T wasn't the star of FC2, it just had an advanced flight model, instead of the basic one that the rest of the aircrafts had.

    DCS World is something like the main hub where all the DCS aircraft/combined arms/whatever-else-they're-modelling modules are going to get connected to. They released the beta, and I suppose they released the free Su-25T as a means to test DCS:W without having to buy the P-51 module, as the older modules haven't been patched for compatility with it yet.

    Ka-50 Black Shark 2 is one of those modules, along with A-10c, P-51, Su-21 and the unnamed american jet plane that's in development, that we currently have knowledge of their existence.


  6. Autohover is NOT realistic

    If you're talking about the way they've implemented autohover in TOH, then I can't argue with you as I don't have the game, but if it's the same as Arma II then yes, it's not realistic. On the other hand, auto hover is a feature of at least Ka-50 and the Apache, and a few other advanced helicopters.

    Of course there are limitations. In DCS, which is considered the most realistic simulation of a helicopter, you have to be travelling up to 10-20 kph to engage the autohover system. It won't magicaly bring you to a halt to the position you engaged it, like what pretty much happens to Arma 2,


  7. Are the butterfly, seagull and olive tree comparisons there to make sure we're not inventing sci-fi variants? :eek:

    Ok, about the olive trees, one thing that's been bugging me since the first screenshot I saw them in.

    They're totally wrong. They just seem unnatural, like they are inside out or something, and that's because the branches are probably set on the tree model the wrong way.


  8. By the way.... is a GTX260 better than a GT530? I have the former sitting in my OLD computer, I had upgraded the stock GPU. The GT530 came with my new computer. Would I see any gain if I switched them, even if the 260 is still on the low end?

    Much much better, the 210/310/510 and up to 230/330/430/530 Geforce models weren't meant for gaming, they were targetted at the OEM and Home Theater PC market. The entry level cards are the x50s and even those are considered slow, although adequate for most games.


  9. I don't know what they mean by "volumetric cloud", my understanding is from a CGI point of view, and is actually volumetric and rather expensive to render. Game volumetric clouds are more likely to be intelligently layered 2D elements.

    Yeah, those aren't volumetric clouds. Volumetric clouds, by definition, have volume. 2d planes are one dimension short of doing the trick.

    These are volumetric clouds.

    C9CfhyajVjY

    Of course, those are pretty advanced and I'm sure that they can't be implemented on a game with the current technology, without bringing it to its knees. But they should look something like that.


  10. None of the above.

    My solution would be to make the targetting system fully moddable. Vanilla working with a tab-targetting system etc. Buf if a modder wants to remove the tab-targetting, hard coded targetting rectangles, add a buddy lazing system etc, he should be able to do it. That could sort the problem with the different targetting systems of each platform.

    Actualy, the one "feature" I have the most problem with in Arma 2 is the rectangles. You can't turn them off, you just tab and see right where the target is and they don't feel integral to each vehicle. If we'll able to remove them, as they are in vanilla, and add them to each helo's/plane's/tank's HUD/targetting system, it would be a very big step forwared, in my opinion.


  11. Ah - nice one ! There's also a few other 'helpers' available in 'recruit' such as the ability to disable the effect of wind.

    Another tip for anyone using an analogue controller for the collective.. you need to map the 'brake' function to the bottom half of the controller if you want to get full control over the collective ! Landings are a bit easier since I worked that one out ;)

    Can't thank you enough. I saw the brake (analogue) option in the controlls but couldn't figure what it was.


  12. So, the community preview was released today, which is right now something like a mod for OA.

    First, can a modder get the flight model and other features from it and apply them on another helo?

    Second, a surprise, render-to-texture on RV 3. The mirror on the left side of the helo works as it should, dynamic, it is affected by draw distance and all.


  13. We still don't know how/where we can use it though (ex: may not be supported for weapon proxies), so don't get your hopes up too high yet.

    Hopefully BIS makes it easy and flexible enough, but I do expect there will be some limitations.

    The most probable use is mirrors, and flir/cameras, as they've already shown these in VBS.


  14. Should have gone to Specsavers.

    Nothing like any T-95 pic I have seen, looks hell of a lot like the Merkava ones I have though.

    UwMw3T_di6o

    Not saying it's the same exactly, but the turret looks like it is. Don't forget that both T-95 and the Commanche have been cancelled. It seems like the game is set in a more alternate reality. Or by 2020 and with a big war raging on all the armies have commisioned cancelled projects of the past, with some changes, along the new ones.


  15. If this is legitimate, which I believe it is due to the picture Lonestar posted, then this tank isn't the Merkava, it's the T-95.

    Also, PeterBitt was talking about the type of ammo it used, as when it shoots the gun it leaves a weird wavey effect.


  16. Well BIS said the maps were twice less detailled.

    so 2x less details + 2x max VD = the same :p

    2x less details is still much more than vanilla FSX or DCS. But what makes those simulations, or any sim, visually adequate or good isn't the floor mesh detail. Ground textures, lighting, water and clouds are much more important.


  17. In the end it comes down to not, "why use Physx?", but instead "why not use Physx?"

    Physx is a physics engine, like every other physics engine out there. The bonus of Physx is that it grants nVidia users bonus features, those features being disabled if you don't use an nVidia card.

    But AMD/ATi users still get standard CPU based physics and minor GPU faced physics (ie; grass movement).

    NVidia users get bonus features. If any other physics engine was used then it would be standard CPU based physics without the extra features to nVidia users.

    So basically saying that using Physx is unfair because of the nVidia advantage is like saying that it's unfair for one kid to starve while another eats, then solving the problem by taking the food away so they both starve.

    Oh wow, this is the most inane arguement I've seen here.

    Did you read any of mine or other anti proponents of Physx arguements at all or are you just talking out of your ass? We're saying if you want to add physics to the engine, use a universal api that doesn't work only on one part of the market.

×